Indian Water Rights, Issue for the '80S

National Indian Law Library NILL No. 010070 NARF Legal Review

Indian Water Rights, Issue for the '80s

Indian water rights w ill undoubtedly be the major Indian belieue that within a year (of establishing the reseruation) rights issue in the 1980s. Nearly every tribe in the western Congress destroyed the (water rights) and took from the United States if fighting to protect its water rights. either Indians the consideration of their grant (of aboriginal through litigation or negotiations. Even though it has been lands) leauing them a borren waste ... took fro m them legally established since 1908 that Indians have special the means of continuing their old habits. yet did not leaue reserved water rights. these rights are still continually being the m the powe r to change to new o nes ... ignored by state and private water users. with the consequences that tribal water resources are being With this decision. W inters u. United Sca tes. the U.S. threatened. are being illegally appropriated. or have already Supreme Court laid down a basic tenet of Indian law - that been completely diverted. T his will continue until triba l with the establishment of an Indian rese rvati on was an water claims are protected by litigation or negotiated implied reservation of su fficient water to enable the Indians se ttlements. to live on these lands which were drastically reduced in sizP Indian treaties which established reservations seldom from the aboriginal lands that they were ceding in treaties mentioned and never defined Indian water rights. However. with the United States. and to which they were being in writing for the U .S. Supreme Court in 1908 in a case in forcibly relocated . The Winters case . or Winte rs Doctrine. which non-Indian water users were asserting that the lay virtually dormant until 1963 when the Supreme Court establishment of the Ft. Belknap Indian reservation in once again addressed the issue of Indian water rights in Montana carried with it no special water rights for the tribe. Arizona u. California. Justice M cKenna stated: Arizona u. California was a suit to litigate th e waters of :he lower Colorado River among the states of A rizona. "The lands (of the reseruation) were arid. and without California. Nevada. the federal government and five sou th ­ irrigation. were practically ualueless. And yet. it is western tribes. In its decision. the Supreme Court not only contended (that) the m eans of irrigation were de libe rately reaffirmed the Winters Doctrine . but ruled that Indian giuen up by the Indians ... Did they re duce the area of reservations were entitled to sufficient wa ter to irrigate all their occupation and giue up the waters which made (the " practicably irrigable acreage" on reservations. The Arizona reseruation) ualuable or adequate? . . . That the decision caused an uproar among the western states and gouernment did reserue (water rights for the tribe) we land owners wbich continues today. T here is little surprise haue decided. and for a use that would be necessarily that the 1908 Winters decision ca used little notice for so continued through years . . . it would be extreme to long a time. Most western tribes. small in number and size .

The Native American Rights Fund is a non-profit, Indian­ Contents controlled organization supported by private foundations and December 1981 Vol.7 (3,4) companies, federal agencies, Indian tribes, individual donors and other sources. NARF works exclusively for Indian rights Indian W ater Rights: Issue for the '80s ...... 1 by providing legal representation in such major areas as tribal Case Developments ...... 7 sovereignty and self-determination cases, tribal resources, and Staff Profile: Suzan Shown H arjo ...... 9 the preservation of tribal existence and Native American cul­ N ew National Support Committee M embers ...... 10 tures. Requests for assistance should be directed to Jeanne Whiteing, Deputy Director. NARF requests expenses and at­ N ARF News ...... 12 torney fees from those clients with ability to pay. Second Annual Art Show ...... 14 Native American Rights Fund Corporate Officers Executive Director: John E. Echohawk (Pawnee) The Native American Rights Fund is a non-profit organization Deputy Director: Jeanne S. Whiteing (Blackfeet-Cahuilla) specializing in the protection of Indian rights. The priorities of Development Officer: Mary L. Hanewall NARF are: ( 1) the preservation of tribal existence; (2) the pro­ Treasurer: Susan Rosseter Hart tection of tribal natural resources: (3) the promotion of human Secretary: Oran G. LaPointe (Rosebud Sioux) rights: (4) the accountability of governments to Native Ameri­ cans: and (5) the development of Indian law. Staff Attorneys Lawrence A. Aschenbrenner* Steering Committee Kurt Blue Dog (Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux) Richard B. Collins Executive Committee: Richard J. Dauphinais (Turtle Mountain Chi1-pewa) Leo LaClair (Muckleshoot). Chairman ...... Washington Walter R Echo-Hawk (Pawnee) Bernard Kayate (Laguna Pueblo), Vice-Chairman .. New Mexico Douglas Endreson (Navajo) Robert Bojorcas (Klamath) ...... Oregon Yvonne T. Knight (Ponca-Creek) John Stevens (Passamaquoddy) ...... Maine Arlinda F. Locklear (Lumbee) Don B. Miller Other Members: Robert S. Pelcyger Curtis Custalow, Sr. (Mattaponi) ...... Virginia Anita M. Remerowski ReNee Howell (Oglala Sioux) ...... South Dakota Terry L. Pechota (Rosebud Sioux) Roger Jim (Yakima) ...... Washington Jeanne S. Whiteing (Blackfeet-Cahuilla) Louis LaRose (Winnebago) ...... Nebraska Patrick Lefthand (Kootenai) ...... Montana Of Counsel Chris McNeil, Jr. (Tlingit) ...... Alaska Leonard Norris, Jr. (Klamath) ...... Oregon Bruce R Greene, T homas N. Tureen, Charles F. Wilkinson Harvey Paymella (Hopi-Tewa) ...... Arizona Lois J. Risling (Hoopa) ...... California Legislative Liaison Suzan Shown Harjo (Cheyenne-Creek)*

National Support Committee National Indian Law Library Owanah Anderson (Choctaw) Diana Lim Garry (Acoma Pueblo) ...... Librarian Iron Eyes Cody (C herokee-Cree) Bryce Wildcat (Pawnee-Euchee) ...... Research Assistant Val Cordova (Taos Pueblo) Joyce Gates (Seneca) ...... Secretary Katrina McCormick Barnes Mary Mousseau (Santee Sioux) ...... Librarian Assistant Will H . Hays. Jr. Alvin M . Josephy. Jr. Indian Law Support Center David Risling. Jr. (Hoopa) Anita Remerowski ...... Director Will Sampson. Jr (Creek) Gloria Cuny (Oglala Sioux) . . . Administrative Assistant Maria Tallchief (Osage) Tenaya Torres (Chiricahua Apache) Head Bookkeeper: Marian Heymsfield Ruth Thompson Office Manager: Rebecca S. Martinez Dennis Weaver Support Staff Rose Brave (Oglala Sioux) ...... Legal Secretary Rosetta Brewer (Cheyenne River Sioux) ...... Receptionist Mary Bumbera * ...... Legal Secretary Linda Caso ...... Legal Secretary Debra Echo-Hawk (Pawnee) ...... NILL Assistant Sue Feller ...... Bookkeeper Sara Hobson (Navajo) ...... Legal Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS is published by the Native American Rights Fund. All rights Jeff Lorencen ...... Printer reserved. Third class postage paid at Boulder. Colorado. Oran LaPointe. Editor. Please see enclosed coupon and item on " NARF Publications" in this newsletter Marilyn Pourier (Oglala Sioux) ...... Legal Secretary for subscription information. Mary Lu Prosser (Cheyenne River Sioux) ...... Secretary Rena Tardugno* _...... Legal Secretary TAX STATUS. The Native American Rights Fund is a non-profit. charitable or­ Pat Tate (Santo Domingo Pueblo) ...... File Clerk ganization incorporated in 197 J under the laws of the District of Columbia. NARF is exempt from federal income tax under the provisions of Section 501 (c) (3) of Susan Yuk-Yin Tuttle ...... Bookkeeper the Internal Revenue Code. and contributions to NARF are tax-deductible. The In· Steve Wheelock (Delaware) ...... NILL Assistant ternal Revenue Service has ruled that NARF is not a "private foundation" as de­ fined in Section 509(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. Law Clerks & Interns MAIN OFFICE: Executive Director. Native American Rights Fund. 1506 Broad­ Maggie Fox ...... Legal Intern way. Boulder. Colorado 80302 (303-447-8760). D.C. Office: Directing Attorney. Lynn Hayes * ...... Law Clerk Native American Rights Fund. 1712 N Street. N.W .. Washington. D.C. 20036 Jean Pfleiderer ...... Law Clerk (202-785-4166)

Founded in 1970 and Incorporated in Washington. D. C. •Washington. D.C. office staff members

2 Native American Rights Fund were not using all the water that ran through their decimated because of upstream diversions. principally the reservations, and non-Indians did not hesitate to Truckee- Carson Irrigation District. a federal reclamation appropriate Indian water w henever they wanted: especially projec t. These diversions have caused a decline in the Lake since the federal government was doing very little to protect level of 70 feet. and cu t off the fis hes· access to their T ruckee them. River spawning, grounds. The cui-ui. w hich is found onlv in Other court rulings have since further defined the nature Pyramid Lake. is classified as an endangered species. while of Indian reserved rights. Indian water rights are property the Lahontan cutthroat trout. the largest trout in the world rights based on federal law, and are not dependent on state which grew to more than 60 pounds in the rich waters of law nor on the riparian or approriative doctrines used in Pyramid Lake. is listed as threatened . establishing non-Indian water rights. Indian water rights are T hese diversions. which are now the subject of ten water " prior and paramount," meaning that the priority date of rights su its. bega n around the turn of the century and with Indian rights goes back to the establishment of their each new diversion. the very life of the Lake. the fisheries reservations or earlier . India n water rights are not lost by and the Paiute Indians themselves are threa tened. Since its non-use (i. e. , a tribe whose reservation was created in ince ption . NARF has been working in association with other 1850, but which only began using its reserved water rights in attorneys to stem the diversions and protect the tribal 1950. has a prior and paramount right to all others whose fisheries. rights were established after 1850) . This prior right is T he decision. U.S. u. Truckee-Carson Irrigation District. significant in times of shortages. Indian water rights include is a significant victory. not only for the Pyramid Lake Paiu te all sources of water - lakes. rivers. strea ms, springs, Tribe. but for Indian water rights generally. First. the Court groundwaters - which cross. border. or underline Indian found that the Secretary of the Interior is not authorized to reservations. take Indian water righ ts for the benefit of reclamation T here still remains many issues to be settled. such as the projects. Second. the Court also ruled that when the United scope of Indian water rtghts. how the right is to be States represents Indians in litigation. it is obligated to act as measured. for what purposes may tribes apply their a trustee and not to compromise the Indian's interests owing reserved rights. and w hether Indian reserved rights are to its conflicing responsibilities. transferable. But to these questions. tribes will answer that Indian reserved water rights are to be interpreted to enable the purpose of the reservations to be fulfilled. that purpose Papago Tribe being to provide a permenant and prosperous homeland for T he Papago Reservation in Arizona is composed of three their people. segments. the main reservation being some 2.8 million Since the protection of tribal natural resources is one of acres. The Gila Band segment is 10.000 acres and is north­ NARF's first priorities. Indian water rights cases have always west of the main reservation. while the San Xavier section is made up a large part of NARF's program. Some of the cases east of the main reservation and has an area of 71 .000 described below have been in litigation for over ten years. acres. The Papagos are an agricultural people and Such protracted proceedings. however. are typical for water historically were a nomadic people who moved in sea rch of cases. Even the few recent decisions the courts have handed water. Because their few sources of wa ter were used by down in Indian water cases have not dealt with the merits of others. they became one of the poorest Indian tribes in the the claims themselves. but with preliminary issues such as Southwest. NARF is now representing the Papago T ribe in state-versus-federal jurisdiction: the duty of the U nited two water cases. one regarding the main reservation and States to file suit to protect Indian water rights. and whether one concerning the smaller San Xavier segment near or not prior court decisions bar present tribal claims. T ucson. Following are summary descriptions of the water righ ts T he Papagos of the San Xavier portion have been cases in which NARF is presently involved. The water farming their lands. using the surface and groundwater of resources of these tribes are either being threatened or have the Santa Cruz River. from time immemorial. However. due already been appropriated and the tribes are now to extremely heavy pumping of groundwater on all sides of attempting to recapture and secure their rights to the water. the reservation by several large copper mines. the City of Tucson and major agricultural interests. the surface flows have all but disappeared and the groundwater table Pyramid Lake Reservation underlying the reservation has been severely depleted. The On June 15. 1981. a Federal appeals court issued a Tribe. individual Indian allottces. and the United States landmark decision upholding the Pyramid Lake Paiute brought su it to halt interference with the T ribe's rights to Tribe's claim to sufficient water to maintain its fishery. the both the su rface and groundwaters. In the meantime. the major sou rce of liveli hood to the Nevada Tribe. Pyramid Tribe beccme involved in detai led settlement negotia ti ons. Lake lies in the center of the Pyramid Lake Indian In the Sum mer of 1980. A rizona Congressman. Morris Reservation located in northwestern Nevada. about 30 Udall introduced a bill to achieve a leqislative settlement of miles north of Reno. The Lake is the rem nant of a vast the complex dispute. In late 1981. he announced that the inland sea which once covered nearly 9.000 square miles of settlement legislation had been worked out to nearly western Nevada. and is fed by the Truckee River w hich everyone's sa tisfaction and that. when passed by Congress. begins at Lake Tahoe 100 miles to the southwest. would encl the suit brought by the Papagos. H e stated that The Paiute Indians have long depended on the Lake's the settlement was a "possible model for water sett lements fisheries resources as their primary food source. But the all over the West." once thriving and world famous fisheries has been The second Papago case concerns the l 978 Ak-Chin Announcements (Vol. 7, Nos. 3, 4) 3 Water Supply Act which directed the Secretary of the the Tongue River, Rosebud Creek and their tributaries. Interior to obtain a substitu te water supply for th e Ak -Chin The United States also filed suit on behalf of the Tribe, Indian Reservation in Arizona. The Int eri or Department and the two cases were consolidated by the court. identified three a lternative areas fr om which that water Various motions to dismiss the suit were filed in 1975 supply could be obtained. but obtaining water from two of and 1976. The motions presented the question of these areas. including the area recommended in the Draft whether the Tribe's water rights should be adjudicated in Environmental Impact Statement. would adversely affec t federal or state court. NARF argued strongly that a federal th e interests of the water rights of the Papago Tribe. NARFs forum is required and is certainly preferable to state courts client. NARF a tt orneys met with th e Papago Tribe"s Water which are, historically, generally hostile to Indian rights. Commissioners and with representatives of the local Papago The motions were before the court for three full years be­ district. They are attempting to persuade the government to fore it finally ruled in 1979 to dismiss the cases from fed­ meet its obligations to the Ak-Chin reservation without eral court for reasons of "wise judicial administration." interferring with the water resources of th e Papago Tribe. NARF appealed the federal court's decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Upon appeal, the Northern Cheyenne case was consolidated with other Montana tri­ Arizona v. California bal water rights cases which were dismissed in the same This historical suit is to adjudicate water rights in the decision. These seven cases involved the water rights of lower basin of the Colorado River between the states of all of the Indian tribes in Montana. Only July 15, 1980, Arizona, California, Nevada, the federal government and oral argument was heard in the Ninth Circuit Court of Ap­ five Indian tribes in which NARF represents the Cocopah peals on the issue of state-versus-federal jurisdiction, and and Chemehuevi tribes. If the claims of the Chemehuevi NARF is now awaiting a decision on the issue. and Cocopah tribes are sustained, their present water In the meantime, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe has rights will be more than doubled. This will be critical to begun settlement discussions with the Montana Reserved improving the tribes' economy on a long-term basis. Water Rights Compact Commission. The Compact Com­ The original decision in Arizona v. California was mission was established by Montana in 1979 specifically handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1963. The to negotiate water rights compacts with Indian tribes. Supreme Court held that the Indian tribes were entitled to NARF is hopeful that these discussions may lead to a set­ sufficient water to satisfy the future as well as the present tlement of some of the issues. The focus of these discus­ needs of the five reservations, and that water was re­ sions involves the need for a new Tongue River Dam served to the tribes to irrigate all "practically irrigable" ac­ which would resolve safety problems with the present reage on the reservations. It later became apparent that dam and provide additional water storage. The pos­ the five tribes were entitled to additional water rights be­ sibilities of increased storage capacity would enhance the cause of the failure of the United States to fully assert the possibilities of settlement. The Tribe has also met with a tribal claims at the original trial, and also by reason of the coalition of state and federal agencies, private organiza­ addition of irrigable lands as the result of the resolution of tions and interested individuals concerning the Tongue boundary disputes after the 1963 ruling. In 1979, the River Dam project. At this point, Montana is seeking fed­ Special Master appointed by the Supreme Court allowed eral funds for a feasibility study. The State legislature has the five tribes to intervene for the purpose of asserting already appropriated $40,000 for a portion of the study these additional rights. and other matters, and $10 million for construction. How­ The trial commenced in Denver in September 1980 ever, the construction money is contingent upon federal and continued for four weeks. It resumed in Phoenix in participation and the successful negotiation of a compact early January 1981 for another three weeks, continued in with the Tribe. All parties are working toward an eventual Atlanta for a two-week period in March and concluded joint state-federal-tribal project. with a one-day hearing in Pasadena, California on April 7, 1981. After the Special Master files his recommended findings and opinion with the U.S. Supreme Court, the is­ sues will again be briefed for the Supreme Court. Oral ar­ Klamath Water Rights gument before the Supreme Court is expected to be set The Klamath Indians have lived for more than a for January or February 1982 with the final decision ex­ thousand years in southcentral Oregon, just east of the pected no later than June 1982. Cascade Mountains. The largest Klamath settlement was located along the Williamson River in the vicinity of an extensive marsh area abundant with game. Historically, Northern Cheyenne Water Rights the Klamath Indians depended on the marsh and its sur­ In 1975. concerned about several court developments rounding rivers, lakes, and forests for food. There they that seemed to be leading toward adjudication of In dian fished, hunted waterfowl and game, and gathered edible water rights in state courts, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe plants. They also depended on the area for clothing and of Montana filed a water suit in the federal district court in building materials. Even now, hunting, fishing, and Montana, and soon th~eafter retained NARF to represent gathering in the area are important to the Klamath In­ them. This case, Northern Cheyenne Tribe ·vs. Montana, dians. seeks to establish the Tribe's right to sufficient water to In 1864, the Klamath Indians entered into a treaty with fulfill the purposes, both present and future, for which the United States, under which they ceded their rights to their reservation was created. The suit involves the adjudi­ more than 12 million acres of land to the United States. cation of rights of numerous defendants to the waters of In return, the federal government reserved 780.000 acres

4 Native American Rights Fund from the public domain and created the Klamath Reserva­ rights were effectively destroyed. Puget Sound Power & tion for exclusive occupation by the Tribe. Article I of the Light (successor to the original 1911 operators of the Treaty reserved to the Indians "the exclusive right of tak­ power project) has maintained that the federal govern­ ing fish in the streams and lakes (of the Reservation), and ment does not have licensing jurisdiction over its project gathering edible roots, seeds, and berries within its limits." because the White River is not a navigable stream. Nearly a century later, the United States terminated its When the Federal Power Commission (FPC) held hear­ special federal trusteeship with the Tribe, but the hunting ings to determine the navigability of the White River, the and fishing rights of the Tribe were again guaranteed in Muckleshoot Tribe, represented by NARF, intervened. An the termination act Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the stream not to United States v. Adair is a water rights action filed by be navigable. However, based primarily on new evidence the United States seeking a declaration that is entitled to submitted by the Tribe, the FPC reversed the ALJ and sufficient water for the Klamath Forest Wildlife Refuge found the stream to be navigable and, therefore, under its and the national forest lands within the area of adjudica­ jurisdiction. The company appealed the FPC decision to tion. NARF is representing the Klamath Tribe which has the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and on May 4, 1981, intervened to protect the water rights associated with its the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the federal government treaty hunting and fishing rights. The Tribe is seeking a (and the Tribe) and found the project to be under the declaration that it is entitled to a minimum stream flow in jurisdiction of the federal government. In November the Williamson River essential to preserving the habitat of 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the company's pe­ the wildlife that is the subject of its hunting and fishing tition for review. The Tribe will now participate in the pro­ rights. Whether Indian hunting and fishing rights, guaran­ ceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commis­ teed by treaty, carry with them a guarantee of water rights sion in efforts to assert its water rights to ensure a suffi­ to preserve the wildlife has never been decided. cient stream flow to protect tribal fishing and other treaty In 1979, the United States District Court for Oregon rights. handed down a decision in the case United States and Klamath Tribe v. Adair and Oregon (478 F. Supp. 336, Ute Water Rights D. Ore. 1979), which confirmed the Tribe's right to use as The two Ute tribes of southwestern Colorado are as­ much water from the Williamson River as necessary to serting their water rights in streams in Colorado and New protect its hunting and fishing treaty rights. In interpreting Mexico. NARF represents the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe in the 1864 treaty between the Tribe and the United States New Mexico v. United States, where the initial issue is which established the reservation, and the congressional whether the New Mexico state court has jurisdiction to de­ termination of the Klamath Tribe in 1961, the district termine the water rights of the Ute Mountain Ute, Navajo, court in Adair declared that the Tribe retained its reserved and Jicarilla Apache tribes. Also at issue is the amount of rights insofar as they are necessary for the preservation of water the tribes are entitled to receive. The Colorado its treaty-protected hunting and fishing rights. cases involve water applications filed by the United States However, despite the favorable decision in Adair, the on behalf of the two Ute tribes and on its own behalf. Klamath Tribe must now quantify its water rights. Experts, These cases were an outgrowth of the Supreme Court's such as hydrologists and wildlife biologists are needed to 1976 decision in Colorado Water Conservancy District v. conduct the necessary studies. Since the Tribe was termi­ U.S., also known as the Akin case. As stated above, the nated, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has taken the position Supreme Court decided in Akin that the State of Col­ that it need not represent the Tribe in protecting its treaty orado had jurisdiction to adjudicate federal water rights, rights nor render any financial assistance. Additionally, the as well as Indian water rights. During the last three years, decision in Adair did not decide whether the United major activity consisted of studies of the water resources States had any federal reserved water rights to accomplish and needs of the Ute tribes. It is possible that if Congress the governmental purposes of the protection of fish and appropriates funds for reclamation projects, it could lead wildlife on the forest lands and in the Klamath National to a negotiated settlement of the suits. Wildlife Refuge. Consequently, if the Tribe's treaty hunt- J.ng and fishing rights are to be preserved at all, it is up to Ft. McDowell Reservation Water Rights the Tribe alone to officially quantify the necessary amount NARF filed suit in federal court on behalf of the Fort of water for that purpose. Adair has been appealed to the McDowell Mohave-Apache Indian Community of Arizona Ninth Circuit in San Francisco and has been fully briefed. in 1979 against the Salt River Valley Water Users' Associ­ Oral argument is expected in 1982. ation, the State of Arizona and others to adjudicate the Tribe's rights to the waters of the Verde River which pass­ Muckleshi>ot Water Rights es through their reservation. The defendants' motion to NARF represents Washington's Muckleshoot Tribe in dismiss on the ground that under federal law the case two cases in the Tribe's efforts to secure its water rights, should have been brought in state court was granted by the loss of which has destroyed the Tribe's fisheries. In the federal district court. This decision was appealed to 1911, a hydroelectric plant was constructed on the White the Ninth Circuit where the court directed that the case be River which flows through the middle of the Muckleshoot heard along with related Montana and Arizona Indian Reservation. The plant diverted substantially all of the water rights cases which present the same issue - river's flow away from the reservation to the power plant. namely, under what circumstances, if any, may an Indian The water was returned to the River below the reserva­ tribe have its water rights adjudicated in federal rather tion. Consequently, the Tribe's treaty-secured fishing than state court. Oral argument was heard on July 15,

Announcements (Vol. 7, Nos. 3. 4) 5 1981, by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Fran­ to find employment. The unemployment rate on some of cisco, and a decision is expected sometime this year. the reservations exceeds 40%. The Fort McDowell reservation is also involved in sec­ Owing to lack of water and of capital, Indian lands lie uring water from the Central Arizona Project (CAP) , pre­ barren while the similarly situated non-Indian lands adja­ sently under construction, which will divert water from the cent to the reservations have valuable commercial citrus Colorado River to water-short central Arizona for munici­ and avocado groves. In fact, the reservation boundaries pal, industrial and agricultural uses. There are a dozen are often marked by the dry, barren land on one side and Arizona tribes, including the Fort McDowell Community, the developed, irrigated groves on the other. which have sought allocations of CAP water to be deliv­ Should the Indians prevail in obtaining the right to op­ ered upon completion of the project. NARF represented erate the facilities, either by recapture· or by the granting Fort McDowell in seeking the CAP allocation and was of their application for a non-power license, the successful in receiving an allocation of 4,300-acre feet of economics of the reservations would be dramatically water in 1980 when the tribal allocations were made. Liti­ changed. The Bands would derive significant revenue gation against the Secretary of Interior challenging these from the sale of water, and additional revenue would be Indian allocations brought by state interests is pending. generated from water transportation. NARF was also involved in stopping proposed federal leg­ The Bands would also relaize some income the opera­ islation that would have prevented the Secretary from tion of the reservation facilities at Lake Wohlford and on making the Indian allocations. the LaJolla Indian Reservation. Some of these revenues would be utilized to develop the agricultural potential of the reservations. Sioux Water Rights Along with the return of the land to the farm operator In March of 1980, the State of South Dakota filed suit and landowners, many new jobs would be generated. in state court to adjudicate all water rights in the Missouri Many, if not most, of them would go to Band members, River system in the western two-thirds of the state (5.D. in such areas as construction, farming and maintenance v. Rippling Water Ranch, et al.). The water rights of seven operations. Under a proposed plan of development, con­ South Dakota Sioux tribes are affected and it is antici­ struction will be phased over 50 years, providing relatively pated that as many as 60,000 defendants eventually will constant and continuous jobs. Other jobs would be be included in the action. NARF assisted in planning pre­ created for Indians at the Lake Wohlford recreation site liminary strategy for the Sioux tribes and the federal gov­ and at the LaJolla fishery and campground. The LaJolla ernment, and now represents the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. Band is currently expanding their camping facilities and The issue now before the court is whether the case is to fishery. The inability of the Indian reservations to generate be adjudicated in state or federal court. The extent and sufficient jobs and income for its members has contributed priority of the tribal water rights will then be litigated. significantly to the deculturization process, to the move­ The United States, as trustee on behalf of the tribes, is ment of families off the reservation, and a forces assimila­ seeking to remove the case to federal court, but the State tion into the non-Indian world. Historically, survival of an filed a motion to remand the case to state court. NARF Indian culture has been dependent upon the existence of assisted in the briefing of this issue by the United States a land base, together with sufficient resources to provide and the tribes, and also filed a brief on behalf of the income for the reservation residents. Rosebud Sioux Tribe in support of federal court jurisdic­ Eve n though a great body of law recognizes the Indians· tion. The federal court has postponed a decision while the tribes, the federal government and the State attempt to prior and paramount water rights. what is needed now is proper enfo rcement and applicatio n of the law to preserve come to some agreement on federal or state jurisdiction a nd impleme nt these rights in order that the Indian tribes and other issues. can su rvive in the arid and semi-arid regions of the West. Resoluti on of the water cases described above and those of other tribes will enhance the economies of the tribes in such Mission Indian Water Rights areas as agriculture. fisheries development. and other In a case including the rights of five southern Ca lifornia wa ter-dependent industries. The Indians' needs are very Mission Indian Bands. NARF is representing the Rincon. small in comparison to the demands on the li mi ted water LaJolla, Pauma, and Pala Bands, and a private firm is resources made by non-Indian users. but are critical to their representing the San Pascual Band. The story of the Mis­ survival and well -bei ng. sion Indian water problems began in 1894 after the six re­ servations were formally established in the San Luis Rey r·-··~;; -:·:::·::: ·:~~~:~~~~;~·~~.~- :~~~·~·:?~ · · :~~~ ·-l watershed in northern San Diego County. As a result of I. carefu l/)· t'or it, he w ill fi nd it, and that is what the l water rights contracts and canals across Indian and public Indians are doing now when the1 · ask you to g ive them ~ land granted by the government and a 50-year license is­ the things that were promised tl1em in the past; and I do 1 sued in 1924 by the Federal Power Commission, virtually ~ not consider that they should be treated lik(' beasts, and i the entire flow of the San Luis Rey River and the LaJolla i that is the reason I have grow n up with the fee ling~ I i. and Rincon Indian reservations has been diverted out of . have. . I (eel that Ill)' countn ha.; gotten a bad nam e, I i. the watershed to the communities of Escondido and Vista, i and I want it to hal'e a good n.ime; and I .'it o;o m etinw.; California. The once-thriving agricultural economies on 1. and wonder w ho it is thtlt ha.; giH'n it a bad nam(' . ' - { Tatanka Yotanka (Sitting !lull), ,\ ~ Pdic i ne Man and Cl1iei, i the reservations have been decimated, and the Indian ( Hunkpapa Sioux, 1877. { people have been forced to relocate off the reservations -··-· · --·-----·-·-·.._~.._.._.._.._ ..__ . ._ ... _ .. _. ______.._ . 6 Native American Rights Fund Federal Indian Employees Retain Grazing Al­ locations. In 1980 Congress revised the conflict-of-inter­ CASE DEVELOPMENTS est laws pertaining to federal employees doing business with Indians (18 U.S.C. 537), and granted authority to the President and Secretal)I of the Interior to issue regula­ tions governing such business relations. NARF was re­ Yankton Sioux Declared Rightful Owners of cently contacted by 14 Indian employees of the Bureau of Lakebed.On September 9, 1981, the Federal District Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service on the Court for South Dakota ruled that the Yankton Sioux Rosebud Sioux Reservation who, with a couple of excep­ Tribe is the rightful owner of the bed of Lake Andes lo­ tions, hold non-administrative federal positions. All had cated within the original Yankton Sioux Reservation in been denied grazing allocations by the BIA, although the South Dakota. NARF had fi led suit on behalf of the Tribe Rosebud Sioux Tribe had approved the permits. Suit was in 1976 when some individuals were harvesting kochia initiated in U.S. District Court in South Dakota to chal­ (fireweed) on the sometimes dl)I lakebed. The suit was lenge the BIA's action. However, the day before the hear­ brought to obtain a court injunction to prevent further ing, the United States agreed to implement regulations trespass and loss of crops. In its decision the Court stated used under the old laws and under which these Indian that when the Yankton Sioux Reservation was established clients were entitled to allocations. The Indian employees in 1858 under treaty with the United States, the Tribe al­ are now able to keep the grazing allocations that they ready held aboriginal title to the 400,000 acres set aside have relied on for years to provide income for their for their reservation. The Court concluded that since this families (Wright v. Schweiker, Civ. No. 81-3059 (D.S.D., title was never extinguished by the United States, the filed Oct. 8, 1981) ). Tribe was still the rightful owner of the lakebed and not the State of South Dakota nor the individual owners of Tunica-Biloxi Tribe Obtains Federal Recogni­ the land adjoining the lake. tion. On September 25, 1981, the Department of the In­ This decision is especially important because it is one of terior issued a final decision granting the Tunica-Biloxi In­ the first court rulings related to the landmark decision of dians of Louisiana federal recognition status. In December the United States Supreme Court in Montana v. United 1980, Interior had published a favorable JJreliminal)I find­ States issued last March. In that case, the Supreme Court ing on the Tribe's petition for recognition. During the en­ held that the State of Montana owned that portion of the suing comment period which had been extended, NARF bed of the Big Horn River which passes through the negotiated with the State of Louisiana on their concerns Crow Reservation. In ruling that the Montana decision over the issues. In April 1981, the comment period ex­ was not applicable to the Lake Andes case, the South pired without the State fil ing any adverse comments on Dakota Court stated that whereas the United States had the petition. NARF is now working on the Tribe's land previously extinguished the aboriginal title of the Crow claim, which had been set aside until the federal recogni­ Tribe to the Big Horn River prior to creating the Crow tion issue was settled. NARF had fil ed a litigation request Reservation, the aboriginal title of the Yankton Sioux to in 1979 with the Interior Department on behalf of the the bed of the Lake Andes has never been extinguished. Tunica-Biloxi which documented a claim to approximately South Dakota has appealed the decision to the Federal 10,000 acres of the Tribe's aboriginal land in Louisiana. Court of Appeals (Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Nelson, et al., The request asked the United States to file litigation on Civ. No. 74-4066 (D.S.D., fil ed Sept. 9, 1981), appeal the Tribe's behalf to recover the property or, in the alter­ docketed (8th Cir.)). native, sponsor a negotiated settlement of the claim. Now that the Tunica-Biloxi Indians are federally recognized, it Alabama-Coushatta Indians Seek Restora­ is hoped that a negotiated settlement of the land claim tion. NARF has been retained by the Alabama-Coushatta can be reached. Indians of Texas to assist them in re-acquiring federal rec­ ognition status. The Tribe is located on a 4 ,500-acre state reservation 90 miles north of Houston. The Tribe was Gay Head Wampanoags Vote In Favor of Set­ once under the exclusive protection of the State of Texas tlement. On September 26-27, the Gay Head Wam­ until the 1920s when the federal government acquired panoags of Massachusetts voted in favor of a proposed additional lands for their reservation and began providing settlement in their land claims suit filed against the Town federal Indian services. This federal relationship was termi­ of Gay Head located near Martha's Vineyard. During nated by Congress in 1954, but Texas continued to act as meetings in Boston in late 1980, major obstacles to the trustee for the Tribe. However, health and educational settlement at Gay Head were finally resolved. Under the problems have increased dramatically since the time of terms of the settlement, the Town of Gay Head will return termination and the Tribe now wishes to be restored to 238 acres to the Tribe and the United States will provide federal status, which will require an Act of Congress. funds to purchase an additional 200 acres. The lands will NARF has held informational meetings with the tribal be held by a state-chartered corporation, whose directors people in order to begin the compilation of historical and will be appointed by the Tribe, and will be subject to an socioeconomic data. Following completion of the express federal restriction against alienation. This corpora­ background material, proposed legislation will be drafted tion will make payments in lieu of taxes to the Town of and efforts to enlist the support of the Texas congres­ Gay Head for any of these lands which are developed. sional delegation and units of local governments will The lands will be subject to a land use plan agreed to in begin. advance and will not be subject to town zoning laws. Announcements (Vol. 7, Nos. 3,4) 7 Hearings on the "Texas Band of Kickapoo Reservation Act" before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. House of Representative, 0l'toher 30. 1981. Traditional Kickapoo Delegation (Seated al front table, left to right): Adolpho Auico, religious leader; Raul Ganza, spokesman; Vicenta. \'ire-President; 1'akai Breen. spokesman: and Hetchema. spokesman. Oklahoma Kickapoo Delegation (At far right): Herbert White. Tribal Chairman (with microphone); John Kaskaskie, Senetar~· ; and James Wapepa, Vice-President. Orhers picrured: Charles Wilkinson, of counsel attorney of NARF for the Kil'kapoo. sernnd row. second from left; and ne.xt to him, Ku rt Blue Dog. ARF staff attorney on the Kickapoo case (Photo Credit: News Photo Worldwide).

Congressional approval is now needed for funds to pay Texas Kickapoo Bill Introduced In Congress. for part of the land intended for the Tribe, and for ratifica­ On September 16th, the "Texas Band of Kickapoo Reser­ tion of the settlement's other provisions. vation Act" was introduced in Congress. The bill (HR. 4496) is intended to secure federal services and a reserva­ tion land base for the Band. Although the Texas Kic­ kapoo Indians are a part of the Oklahoma Kickapoo Tribe, they are denied needed federal services in such Ft. McDowell Reservation Gets Reprieve critical areas as health, housing, and a secure land area. From Flooding. On November 12th, Secretary of Inter­ lhe denial is based on the policy that the Texas Kickapoo ior James Watt issued a preliminary decision against the residence at Eagle Pass, Texas, is not an Indian reserva­ building of Orme Dam which would have flooded three­ tion. So only by travelling the 800 miles to the Oklahoma fourths of the Ft. McDowell Indian reservation in central Kickapoo reservation can they receive federal Indian ser­ Arizona. The Secretary's decision favors two other sites vices. The Texas Kickapoos are one of the few remaining which are outside of the reservation and would not flood Indian tribes which still speak their own language exclu­ Indian lands. There was almost unanimous support in sively and retain much of their other cultural traditions. favor of the alternative sites by the Tribe, the Arizona Many of the 600 members travel annually between Eagle congressional delegation, the governor and local officials. Pass, Oklahoma, and to Nacimiento, Mexico, for religious An Environmental Impact Statement will be issued in the ceremonies. (See the June 1981 Announcements for an Spring of 1982, followed by public comment period, after article on the Texas Kickapoo). which a final decision on the sites will be iss11ed. +p.11 Native American Rights Fund New National Support Committee Members

NARF is pleased to announce the addition of three new from the U.S. Department of Education: worked with the members to its National Support Committee. The addi­ Eight Northern Pueblos· OEO programs: was JOM program tions of Iron Eyes Cody, Val Cordova and David Risling, officer for the New Mexico State Department of Educa ti on: Jr. brings the membership on the NSC to 12. and Director of Supportive Education at Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute. In 1973-74. Mr. Cordova was chairma n of the All Indian Pueblo Council. and then taught Iron Eyes Cody, a Cherokee-Cree originally from at the University of New Mexico before accepti ng his present Oklahoma, is probably most well-known for his role as position in 1975 as Principal of the San Felipe Day School at the " Indian in the Canoe" who San Felipe Pueblo. cried at the pollution of America in the Keep America Beautiful television commercial. These TV spots have now been running for 12 years and new ones are being David Kisling, Jr., a Hoopa Indian from Davis, filmed and aired. In addition to California, is no stranger to the Native American Rights Mr. Cody's Keep America Beauti­ Fund, having served as Chairman of • ful role, this prominent Native its Steering Committee from 1973 American is presently working on until 1981. During his tenure as head a series for CBS television. His of NARF's policy making board, Mr...... Risling' s leadership was instrumental in motion picture credits include numerous documentary films (~ l'1 as well as commercial enterprises. H e starred as Standing guiding NARF from its early stages to \ k Bear with Ben Johnson in Grey Eagle: as the Sun Dance the leading national Indian organiza- ~ Pries t with Richard Harris in A Man Called H orse: as Crazy lion it is today. Mr. Risling is former ..... , .. C&" Foot in Cockeyed Cowboys: and as Satana in El Condor. chairman of the Board of Trustees of ,:-.,.. ... , ..-.~'{1- 1 1WI Mr. Cody also portrayed Crazy H orse in S itting Bull. and California Indian Legal Services, and • :. s I ·. ~ ; ~ i recently completed W ilderness Trail in Canada. founder and former president for • "' ...., t • .. ...-·- · • Besides his acting, Mr. Cody has authored three books many years of the California Indian Education Association. relating to Indian sign language, legends and art, as well During the Nixon Administration. he was appointed by the as various magazine and newspaper articles. He is actively President to serve on the National A dvisory Council on involved in a leadership capacity in num,erous civic or­ Indian Educa tion. He is presently Coordinator of the Nati ve ganizations nationally, and in the Los Angeles area where American Studies Program at the U niversi ty of California. he resides. Recently, he and Bob Hope were cited for Davis. and is chairman of the Board of Trustees of D-Q their many years of participation in the scouting program. University. He is a technical advisor for Indian songs, rituals, costum­ ing and traditions and owns what is considered to be one of the finest private collections of Indian costumes

-~..._...-·--··-··--._-··----·------·--·-·--·--·-·- Val Cordova is a recent member of the NARF Steering I ! Committee . having bee n on the Committee since 1973. Mr. I " Th e white man does not understand the Indian for the i Cordova. a member of the Taos l reason that he does not understand America. He is too t • fa r remove: d from its formative processes. The roots of Pueblo of New Mexico. is a t l the tree of his life have not yet grasped the rock and soil. graduate of Manhattan College of i The white man is still troubled with primitive fea rs; he i New York and later received a l sti ll has in his unconscious the perils of this frontier l master·s degree in. Education Ad­ l continent, some of its vastness not yet having yielded to i ministration from the University of i his questing footsteps and inquiring eyes . He shudders i New Mexico. After 3 1/2 years of ; still with the memory of the loss of his forefathers upon ! se rvice with the CIA in South j its scorching deserts and forbidding mountaintops. Th e l man from Europe is still a foreigner and an alien. And he i America . he held a va riety of posi­ i ti ons in the area of Indian educa ­ [ still hates the man who questioned his path across the continent. But in the Indian the spirit of the land is still i tion. He taught at Taos H igh 1 ( vested; it wil/ be until other men are able to divine and i School for two years before leav­ l meet its rh ythm. M en must be born and reborn to l ing to join an Indian training pro­ I belong. Their bodies must be formed of the dust of their gram at Arizona State University under the then newly­ ; forefathers' bones. " - Luther Standing Bear. established OEO program. He then received a fellowship ~ ~.--·· --...... -·------· ·--··-·-·-··-- · · -· ·-··-· · -··-· Announcements (Vol. 7, Nos. 3,4) 9 STAFF PROFILE /\nn l .l'<.llll'r

r or the past two years, Suzan Shown Harjo has served as Legislative Li aison in NARr' s Washington Office. During that time she has managed successfu l efforts to achieve passage of such significant legislation as the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980; the extention, for the third time, of the statute of limitations on damage claims under 28 use 2415; the exemption of oil owned by tribes and individual Indians from the Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980; and th e protection of Indian fishing, water, land, and cultural rights. Ms. Harjo has also worked w ith many tribes, Indian organizations· and legal services programs to secure appropriations for specific programs, se rvices and facilities. This summer's edition of the Indian Rights Association's Indian Truth called NARF "a leader in the effort" to " protect federal funding of Indian programs." The publication character­ ized M s. Harjo as "an almost legendary powerhouse, who typically maintains a low profile on Capitol Hill, but is widely credited w ith important legislative victo­ ri es." Ms. Harjo previously directed NARF's legislative program from March of 1977 to March of 1978, when she acce pted an appointment as Special Assistant for Indian Legislation in the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. During her 19-month appointment, she also served as Member Alternate to the Board of Trustees of the American Folklife Center and as a member of the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation's com­ Suzan Shown Harjo, Legislative Liaison mittee to se lect quotations for the Mall. As coordinator of the Task Force on American Indian Religious Freedom, she prepared the Pres ident's response to Congress, pursuant to P. L. 95-341 (Report of August 1979). She also prepared the federal Indian report on U.S. compliance with Principles VII and VIII of the Helsinki Accords for use by the Commission on Security Ms. Harjo's poetry has been included in numerous and Cooperation in Europe in " Fulfilling Our Promises: publications, anthologies and textbooks, including The The United States and the Helsinki Final Act" (Report of Remembered Earth: An Anthology of Contemporary November 1979). Native American Literature (Red Earth Press, 1978). As Prior to her work with NARF, she was Communica­ part of Women/ Voices/ 1975 of the International Wom­ tions Director and Legi slative Assistant with the NCAI, en's Arts Festival, she was selected as one of 20 where she worked for passage of the Indian Health Care American poets for the Town Hal I concert reading that Improvement Act, the Indian Child Welfare Act, and was a kick-off event for International Women's Year coordinated th e NCAl/NTCA review of federal regula­ activities. Since 1970, she has been listed in the tions to implement the Indian Self-Determination and Directory of American Poets. Her most recent non-fiction Education Assistance Act. While w ith NCAI, she also article, " What to Do While Waiting for the Ax," appears served as Coordinator of the National Indian Litigation in the November 1981 edition of £/ SA, a publication of Committee. A former John Hay Whitney Fellow, she has the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist also served as News Director of the American Indian Church. Press Association; faculty coordinator for six semesters of In 1980, Ms. Harjo was se lected as a member of the a lecture se ries on contemporary Indian issues, School of U.S. Delegation to the VII I Congress of the Inter­ Continuing Education, New York University; and Direc­ American Indian Institute for th e international treaty tor of the Drama and Literature Department, WBAl-fm organization's 40th Anniversary session in Merida, Radio Station, New York City, where she co-produced Mexico. She was selected by the Americans for with her husband a bi-weekly Indian news and analysis Democratic Action to serve on the Pan el of Distin­ program, " Seeing Red." guished Citizens to take testimony at the Citizens' Energy

10 Native American Rights Fund Cases . .. fr. p. 8 Tribe could not enforce their game code against non:ln­ dians, the Court cited the recent decision of the U.S. Su­ Supre me Court's Denial of Review Upholds preme Court in U.S. v. Montana. stating: Montana pre­ Michigan Indian Fishing Rights. On December 14. cludes a finding of fact or a conclusion of law that the cir­ 1981. the U.S. Supreme Court Denied Michigan's appeal in cumstances and need of the Chippewa ... were sufficiently the historic US u. Michigan Indian fishing rights case. The exigent and pressing to overcome the presumption that in denial of review lets stand a decision by the Sixth Circuit the 1854 Treaty the United States did not convey to the Court of Appeals affirming the Indian treaty fishing rights in Indians sovereignty over the navigable waters within the the Great Lakes. The case was first filed in 1973 by the boundaries of the Lac Courte Oreilles reservation... In United States on behalf of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe and the November, NARF attorneys filed a notice of appeal (Wis­ Grand Traverse Ba nd of Ottawa-Chippewa Indians. with consin v. Baker, No. 76-C-359 (W.D.Wisc .. filed Oct 23. NARF representing the Bay Mills Indian Community. 1981), appeal filed (6th Cir. ). The tribes argued that at the time they entered into treaties with the United States under which they ceded large areas of land and waters in the Great Lakes region. they had reserved the right to continue to hunt and fish in the ceded areas. Michigan vigorously denied the existence of any Cheyenne-Arapaho Oil Lease Dispute. In May special Indian treaty fishing rights. but in 1979 a U.S. district 1981, NARF was asked to intercede on behalf of the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma in a dispute in­ court for Michiga n upheld the triba l claims and ruled that tribal members of the plaintiff tribes had the right to fish in volving tribal oil and gas leases. The dispute involves the the ceded areas of lakes Michigan. Superior and Huron free automatic renewal of several tribal oil and gas leases of state regulation. In affirming the district court's decision. negotiated in 1976 due to the involuntary communization the Sixth Circuit court ruled that Michigan had only limited by the lands covered by the leases. Approval for the com­ au thority to regulate Indian treaty fishing: the condition munization agreement, which was required under federal being that it must show to the court that Indian self­ law, was given by the Anadarko Office of the Bureau of regulation was inadequate for conservation purposes. Indian Affairs two days before the leases were to expire. If the leases had expired, presumably they would have been NARF attorneys. in conjunction with triba l and federal renegotiated and the tribes would have received substan­ attorneys. are now in the process of implementing the tial bonuses. H owever, under automatic renewal, the district court's decision. tribes are trapped under the terms of the old leases ar a price for their oil and gas considerably under that of the Court Holds Lac Courte Oreilles Cannot Reg­ private market. NARF attorneys have completed briefing ulate Non-Indians Hunting And Fishing. On October in an administrative appeal filed with the Bureau of Indian 23, the U.S. District Court ruled that the State of Wiscon­ Affairs challenging the validity of thP communization sin has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate hunting and fish­ agreements without tribal approval, and asserting that the ing by non-Indians on and in the navigable waters within BIA breached its trust responsibility and discretion in ap­ the Lac Courte Oreilles reservation. In holding that the proving the commercially unreasonable agreements.

Oversight Hearing, and w as also selected to partic ipate Her current advocacy activities on behalf ot NARf's in the task group on water for the National Conference tribal clients includes such national Indian-interest on Renewable Natural Resources, sponsored by the legislation as the Tribal Governmental Tax Status Act; American Forestry Association and two dozen other water and fi shery measures; oversight of federal progress national organ izations. regarding 2415 claims; attorney fees (and related Indian At present, she is a faculty member of the Indian representation matters); religious freedom issues; and Development District of Arizona's Management and youth conservation work and other jobs bills. She is also Training Institute, established by the tribes of Arizona; involved in case-specific resources and status clarifica­ Secretary-Treas urer for the Human Environment Center; tion ef forts for tribes and Indian inst itutions, such as D-Q and a member of the boards of directors of the University, and the Gay Head, Kickapoo, Kootenai, Amerindian Circle, the M inority Legislative Education Table Bluff and Yavapai-Apache' tribes, among others. Program, the National Institute for Women of Color and M s. Harjo, 36. is Cheyennr and Crt'rk, with citizenry ON / AIR. in the Cheyennr and Arapahoe Tribe's of Oklahoma. She In addition to legislative activities during 1981 , she was born in 11 Rr no, Oklahoma, to Su~iC' Lades also made numerous presentations on Indian ri ghts and (Chl'yrnne and Pawnl'r) and I r0eland Douglas (CrrC'k). needs in the Washington area and national Ir. She ShP ha~ livrd in Washington, D .C., since 1974, with her participated as a panelist or featured speaker in annual husband I rank Ray Harjo (Crl'C'k). and tlw ir daughter conferences of the National Tribal Chairmen's Associa­ Aclria1w (16). and '>On, Dukt' (8). Ms. Harjo may bC' tion ( TCA), the f ederol Bar Association's Indian rt'acht'cl in ARI \ vVa-.hington Oifin', 1712 StrC'C't, Committee, the Americ,111 Indian Bar Association, the .W .. \\'c1shington, D.C. 200 \6 (202 -78S--l166). All trihal Trihal I mploynwnt Rights Oifices, tht- National Congres s rl'(\lll''h ior NARI 's lrgi-.J,1tivl' ,b-. i-.lclllC\' -.houlcl bl' of Anwric,rn Indian-. ' (NCAI) Mid-Yv,1r Conil'rl•nc l' ,1ncl clirl'lll'cl lo M'. kan1w Whitl'ing, Dl'put\ l)irt'ctor, thl' Anwrilcll1 lnd1,rn I cl\\' \ P l l 1clining l'rogram ·s Indian NARI . 1 'i06 lho,1d\\ cl\, l\oulcll'r. C 0101 ,10 80 \02 (.\03- Wall'r Polic \ S\ mpo~ium. 447-87<>0).

Announcements (Vol. 7. Nos. 3.4) 11 NARF NEWS

Steering Committee Elections A policy adopted by the NARF Steering Committee in 1975 limiting membership on the Committee to three terms had its first impact at the recent November Board meeting as the third and final terms ended for Chairman David Risling, Vice-Chairman Val Cordova and Leroy Logan. Mr. Risling, a member of California's Hoopa Tribe, was one of NARF's original Board members when it was established in 1970 as a pilot project of California Indian Legal Services. Mr. Cordova, a Taos Pueblo from Terr~· Pcchota New Mexico and Mr. Logan, an Osage Indian from Ok­ lahoma, have been on the Board since 1973. suit brought by South Dakota against all water users in There were four Board vacancies to fill at the meeting's the western part of the state, including seven Sioux tribes. elections since Jerry Running Foxe, a member of Ore­ In this suit, South Dakota v. Rippling Water Ranch, et al. , gon's Coquille Tribe, also left the Board. The names of he was responsible for seeing that the federal government 16 Native Americans from around the country were carried out its trust responsibility toward the Sioux tribes placed in nomination to serve on NARF's 13-member, all­ in efforts to protect their water rights. (This case is still ac­ Indian Board. The four elected were: tive, and NARF represents the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. )

Patrick Lefthand, Kootenai, Montana Chris McNeil, Jr., Tlingit, Alaska New Staff Attorney: Douglas Endreson Leonard Norris, Jr., Klamath, Oregon Douglas Endreson, of the Navajo Tribe, joined NARF Harvey Paymella, Hopi-Tewa, Arizona as a staff attorney in August 1981. Doug received is undergraduate degree in !oi!p::;; ..1 1975 from Colby College of -~ 1 Ada Deer Resigns Waterville, Maine. He attended Ada Deer, one of NARF's two legislative liaisons work­ law school at the University of ing out of NARF's Washington, D.C. office, resigned in Wisconsin where he received August to return to teaching at the University of Wiscon­ his J.D. degree in 1978, and sin in Madison. Ada, a member of the Menominee Tribe L.L.M. in 1980. When he ac­ of Wisconsin, joined NARF in 1979. Much of her time cepted the NARF position, he "' . during the last two years was spent in the areas of Indian was a law clerk for Justice Shir- _...._____ education, housing and health. At Madison, Ada has a ley S. Abrahamson of the Wis­ joint appointment in the social science department and consin Supreme Court, and the Native American program in which she is teaching a was one of 33 finalists in the course on current issues in American Indian affairs. White House Fellowship sele_c­ tions. During his first year at Doug Endreson NARF, Doug will be on NARF's New Staff Attorney: Terry Pechota "Indian Lawyer Intern Training Program," a special pro­ Terry Pechota, a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe ject funded by the Carnegie Corporation. of South Dakota, joined NARF as a staff attorney last September. After graduating from the University of Iowa law school in 1972, Terry went to work for the South Other Staff News Dakota Legal Services on the Rosebud Reservation, and September 13th marked the tenth anniversary at NARF in 1974, he was appointed Director of the program. His for Susan Hart. Susan started at NARF in 1971 legal services work involved both criminal and civil cases, as a bookkeeper, became head book­ primarily civil rights, Indian rights and consumer affairs is­ keeper in 1975 and was promoted to sues. He resigned in 1976 to go into private practice, dur­ treasurer in 1978. She recently received ing which time he represented the Rosebud, Oglala, her Bachelor of Arts degree in business Yankton and Lower Brule Sioux tribes in cases involving administration from Denver's Loretto Indian water rights, tribal government reorganization, ta­ Heights College. D Lynn Hayes, a xation and other Indian rights issues. · third-year law student at Catholic Uni­ In October of 1979, he was appointed United States versity in Washington, D.C., is working Attorney for the State of South Dakota. A~ U.S. Attorney, as a law clerk in NARF's Washington he personally tried or supervised all criminal and civil office. O Maggie Fox, a third-year cases involving the United States Attorney's Office in law student at Lewis & Clark College in Sus:rn Hart South Dakota. Of special significance is the fact that at the Portland, Oregon, began a six-month legal internship at time of his resignation he was handling the water rights NARF's Boulder office last September. Ma~ is a 12 Native American Rights Fund I

NARF Publications & Resources National Indian Law Library

ANNOUNCEMENTS. NARF's quarterly newsletter reports on NARF's activities to our grantors, indi­ The National Indian Law Library (NILL) is a reposit­ vidual contributors, clients and others interested in ory and clearinghouse for materials on Indian law. It American rights. There is no present subscription was established by NARF in 1972 in response to a charge but contributions to help pay for publication growing demand for materials on Indian law and is a and mailing are welcome. Anyone interested in re­ major part of meeting NARF's commitment to the de­ ceiving Announcements should fill out the enclosed velopment of Indian law. coupon. (Editor's note: Donors to NARF who con­ tribute $25 or more annually will receive this news­ letter automatically.) The Collection. NILL collects, indexes and distri­ butes an ever-growing collection of materials on Indian "Indian Rights, Indian Law." This is a film law. The holdings, which now number over 3,500 documentary, produced by the Ford Foundation, items, consist of: ( 1) court decisions, including some focusing on NARF, its staff and certain NARF pleadings and briefs; (2) articles from law journals and casework. The hour-long film is rented from: Associ­ other periodicals; (3) books, monographs, and govern­ ation Films, Ford Foundation Film, 866 Third Ave., ment documents; (4) solicitors' opinions and New York, New York 10022 (212-935-4210) memoranda; and (5) numerous other resource mater­ 16mm, FFllO - $50.00) ials on Indian law.

NILL Catalogue. The National Indian Law Library The NILL Catalogue. The library disseminates in­ Catalogue: An index to Legal Materials and Re­ formation on its holdings primarily through its National sources is described in the NILL article in this issue. Indian Law Library Catalogue: An Index to Indian The first edition is out of print and the Second Legal Materials and Resources. The NILL Catalogue is Cumulative Edition is scheduled for publication later designed for those who would like to know what is this year. Please see enclosed coupon. available in any particular area of Indian law and to be able to request materials. In addition to a comprehen­ ANNUAL REPORT. This is NARF's major report sive Subject Index of 400 headings and subheadings, on its program and activities. Because of cost, the the Catalogue includes a Table of Cases, an Author­ annual reports are distributed on a limited basis to Title Indedx, and is supplemented periodically. The first foundations, major contributors, certain federal and cumulative edition is now out of print and a second state agencies, tribal clients, Native American organi­ cumulative edition is scheduled for publication later this zations and to others upon request. year. The library is in the process of converting its holdings to a computer system to enable it to update Upcoming Articles case files more quickly and to facilitate research into the collection (Please see enclosed coupon). Future issues of Announcements will carry articles on the following subjects, all of which NARF is involved in. The Services. NILL's resources are available to Anyone interested in contributing items for publication anyone interested in Indian law. Copying costs are ten should contact the editor (Ads are not accepted.) cents per page; this fee is waived for LSC-funded legal • Eastern Land Claims. Part II of the historic land services programs and Indian parties. Although all the claims of the Eastern tribes. holdings are available at the library for anyone to study, not all materials can be sent out, either because • Recognition & Restoration. A report on the ef­ of copyright restrictions or excessive copying costs. In­ forts of non-recognized and terminated tribes to formation for obtaining these restricted materials di­ obtain federal recognition, including NARF's rectly from the source is given in the Catalogue. Until work in this vital area. the computer system is operational, the library cannot • Indian Child Welfare Act. A report on this 1978 accommodate requests for extensive research into the Act and on what tribes and others are doing to collection. Requests for NILL materials should be lim­ enforce and strengthen the Act. ited to ten items per request. graduate of the University of North Carolina and is spe­ Donations. NILL welcomes donations of books, cializing in natural resource and Indian law. D Other re­ articles and other materials on Indian law. Briefs and cent staff additions include Marilyn Pourier, a member pleadings from Indian law cases, usually difficult and of the Oglala Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, as a legal sec­ expensive to obtain, are especially welcome because of retary; Jeff Lorencen as NARF's new printer; Linda their value to the lihr;\rv's clients. Please contact the Caso as a new legal secretary; and Jean Pfleiderer, a librarian, Diana Lirr. Garry, regarding donations. graduate of the University of Colorado School of Law, as a law clerk in the Boulder office.

Announcements (Vol. 7, Nos. 3,4) 13 The show received outstanding reviews from local art critics and others. Best of Show awards went to Randy Wood (Seminole-Creek) for " Otter Vision" in the original Second Annual NARF Art Show graphics category; to Barry Coffin (Navajo) for " The Tall One" in the three-dimensional work; and to Amando Pena (Yaqui) for "Bisonte Serie Blancos" in the limited Over 40 Native American artists participated in NARF's edition category. Besides paintings, prints and sculpture, second annual art show and lecture series, "Visions of the show included leather works, rugs, woven baskets, the Earth," held December 4-6, at NARF's offices in and Indian jewelry. An exhibition poster was especially Boulder. The Colorado Humanities Program sponsored designed by noted Crow artist Earl Biss and was a the lecture series, and 20% of the proceeds from ·the art popular item with the visitors. sales was contributed to NARF. Many of the exhibiting

Alabaster sculpture by Presley LaFountaine Exhibit display at NARF offices in Boulder As one of the country' s lead ing Indian organizations, NARF believes strongly in promoting this important artists were on hand to discuss their work with the nearly aspect of Indian life. Likewise, the support of NARF's 1,000 visitors to the art show. Noted Indian actor and work by participating artists nationwide is extremely artist, Will Sampson, a member of NARF's National valuable in our efforts to promote se lf-determination for Support Committee, attended th e show as a special Native Americans. Plans are already underway for next guest. year's show, hoping to make it even bigger and better than th is year's.

A limited number of th e ex hibition posters are st il I available. The 21 'Ii X 32" four-color poster is an offset reproduction of a 1980 Earl Biss oil painting, "Autumn of the Kaur-Delaine With Reflections of Monet," and would make a beautiful gift for oneself or a friend. 100% of the exhibition poster sales proceeds benefit NARF. To order, please make out your check or money order to the Native American Rights Fund ($30 per poster plus $2 for mailing), and send to: Ea rl Biss Poster, Native American Rights Fund, 1506 Broadway, Boulder. Col_orado 80302 . Walnut sculpture by Eddy Running Wolf

14 Native American Rights Fund Please type or print clearly and make checks payable to the Native American Rights Fund. Thank you.

Enclosed is my tax-deductible contribution to assist the Native American Rights Fund in the assertion and protection of Native American rights. *

Name 0 $25 0 $50 0 $100

Address 0 $500 0 Other:$......

0 Please send me information on your bequest program.

City State Zip

Mail to: Accounting Department Native American Rights Fund 1506 Broadway •Contributors of $25 or more annually will receive this newsletter Boulder, Colorado 80302 and need not send in the Announcements coupon.

For a description of the National Indian Law Library Catalogue: An Index to Indian Legal Materials and Resources and the forthcoming publication of the new edition, please see Items on the Library and NARF Publications.

Name or Department

0 Please notify me when the new Address NILL Catalogue is available

0 Send me ...... copy(ies) of the Catalogue at $75.00 a copy when it is p ublished and bill me at that time. *

City State Zip

Mail to: Accounting Department Native American Rights Fund •This Cafd/ogue price is subJect to change but all orders postmarked 1506 Broadway before any official change will be honored. Boulder, Colorado 80302

Please enter the following subscription for Announcements*

Name or Department

There is no charge but contributions Address 0 to help pay for publication and mailing are welcome.

0 $5 0 $10 0 Other:$......

City State Zip

Mail to: Accounting Department Native American Rights Fund 1506 Broadway Boulder, Colorado 80302 •See newsletter item on NARF Publicarions. ReguL!r donors to NARF of $25 or more annu4//y W1ll auromadcaUy recewe this newsletter

Announcements (Vol. 7. Nos. 3, 4) 15 Requests for Assistance Contributions to the Any work undertaken by the Native American Native American Rights Fund Rights Fund, whether it be litigation, advocacy or The work of the Native American Rights Fund is other legal assistance, must come within the supported by grants and contributions from private priorities and guidelines established by the NARF foundations, corporations, federal agencies. .,_ .tribes, and Steering Committee. NARF's resources, both finan­ individuals. NARF is continually in need of funds to cial and attorney staffing, also determine NARF's support its efforts to protect the rights of Native Alas­ ability to accept legitimate requests. All requests for kans and American Indians throughout the United legal assistance or inquiries regarding NARF's ser­ States. Those who would like to make a contribution vices must be addressed to the Deputy Director at should see the enclosed coupon. Anyone interested in the Boulder, Colorado office. receiving more information on NARF should contact Mary Hanewall, Development Officer, at the Boulder office. Jeanne Whiteing, Deputy Director Native American Rights Fund Remember NARF With a Bequest 1506 Broadway Boulder, Colorado 80302 A bequest to NARF will not only help us to continue (303-447-8760) defending Indian rights in future years,. but can be of benefit to you in your present tax planning. For infor­ nation on this method of giving, please check the box on the enclosed "Contribution" coupon.

Native American Rights Fund Nonprofit Org. 1506 Broadway US POSTAGE Boulder, Colorado 80302 PAID Boulder, Colorado Permit No. 589